File photo: Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
Photo: Subhashish Panigrahi
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0
Judgment Intelligence
OtherUnion of India v. Mohanlal & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 2012
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 28 January 2016
- Bench
- Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Kurian Joseph
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 52A, 53, 55; Standing Order No. 1/89; Notification dated 16 January 2015
Final Outcome
Directions issued; the appeal was listed for final hearing. Sampling must be under a Magistrate's supervision, storage facilities must be set up within six months, seized stocks are to be disposed of by Drugs Disposal Committees, and High Courts are to monitor compliance (paras 20-22).
Source Supreme Court of India (sci.gov.in), decided 28 January 2016 · Court's copy
Reading is free. Downloading the PDF of a judgment published more than 7 days ago needs a free account. Register or sign in to download
Key holdings
- After seizure, the drugs go to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or the empowered officer, who must apply to the Magistrate under Section 52A (paras 13, 20).
- Sampling is done in the Magistrate's presence and under his supervision; the Act does not require sampling at the time of seizure (para 13).
- The Central and State Governments must set up exclusive storage facilities with vaults and double locking within six months, each with a designated officer (para 20).
- Drugs in finally concluded cases are to be destroyed by the Drugs Disposal Committees without further testing, under the supervision of the head of department (para 19).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
In a pending NDPS appeal by the Union of India, doubts arose over whether Standing Order No. 1 of 1989, which prescribes the procedure for seizure, sampling, storage and disposal of seized drugs, was actually being followed (para 1). The Court appointed Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha as Amicus Curiae, noted reports of huge stocks of seized narcotics awaiting disposal, and directed every State and central agency to report on seizure, storage, destruction and judicial supervision (paras 1-3). The reports showed large gaps between the quantities seized and destroyed, no uniform sampling practice, and no dedicated storage in most States (paras 4-11).
Court's Findings
Standing Order No. 1/89 requires samples to be drawn on the spot of recovery, but most States do not do so (para 11). Under Section 52A(2) and (3), the seized contraband must be forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or the empowered officer, who must apply to a Magistrate; samples are drawn in the Magistrate's presence and certified by him, and under Section 52A(4) they are primary evidence (para 13). "Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure" (para 13). The conflict with the Standing Order must be resolved in favour of the statute (para 13). The Court declined to read a time limit into Section 52A, but held that the application must be made without undue delay and decided by the Magistrate within a reasonable time (para 14). On storage, the safes, vaults and gazetted supervision required by the Standing Order had not been provided, and only 16% of contraband seized between 2002 and 2012 had been disposed of, showing "a complete failure bordering criminal negligence" (para 15).
Legal Principle
Under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, samples of seized drugs are to be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of a Magistrate, who certifies them, on an application made without undue delay. The Act does not mandate sampling at the time of seizure, and a contrary Standing Order yields to the statute (paras 13-14).
